The Abu Dhabi Court of First Instance rejected a compensation claim filed by a contracting company against one of its employees, asking him to compel him to compensate it with 501 thousand dirhams in compensation for embezzling a commission letter signed in blank and using it for his benefit to obtain commissions of 2.3 million dirhams. Criminality is based on certainty and certainty.
In detail, a contracting company filed a lawsuit demanding that one of its employees pay it 501 thousand dirhams in compensation for misappropriating a document and misusing it, noting that the employee embezzled a document signed in blank and used it without the consent of the signatory, to oblige the (complainant) company to pay a commission to him. The defendant, before the court, denied the charges against him.
For her part, the defendant’s defense, lawyer Abeer Al-Dahmani, confirmed that her client had previously worked in the company for 15 years, during which he was an example of ethics and professional commitment, noting that the document was not subject to any forgery and that it was signed by one of the company’s employees responsible for commissions. The court referred the document to the Criminal Evidence Department to examine the commission confirmation letter, and to indicate whether it was forged by writing and entering texts on it, or whether it was valid and correct.
The report of the forensic expert delegated by the court confirmed that the document was written and signed by another employee’s handwriting, and not the handwriting of the accused, and that the stamp imprint attributed to the (plaintiff) company on the original document, there is no indication of forgery, and the original document has nothing in it. Indicates that the signature and seal under examination were on a white paper prior to the writing included in the document.
The court stated in the merits of the ruling, that it is sufficient in criminal trials for the trial court to question the validity of the attribution of the accusation in order to rule the acquittal, as the matter is due to the evidence it is reassured, and the court, as it is within it, is not convinced of the sufficiency of the elements of evidence and suggested the defense of the accused to deny having committed the alleged crime. It is within the discretion of the trial court.
She pointed out that if the evidence was touched upon by the possibility, the inference was dropped, as doubt is interpreted in the interest of the accused and criminal judgments are based on assertiveness and certainty, not on suspicion, conjecture or guesswork.
• “Abu Dhabi Court” acquitted the employee of the charges.
